This is very true...
At a recent family gathering I spent about an hour trying to explain to
various people why "open source" voting machines are more secure.
Everyone perceived "open" as being able to go in and change votes...
The fact that I was trying to explain the open source model for the
first time did not help...
I simply don't understand why a company doesn't do open source voting
machines... you could sell the hardware and the software.. and get the
open source community to write the software for you.... It seems like a
perfect arrangement.
Adam Jacob Muller
"They [conservatives] don't get it. We [liberals] love America just as
much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the
way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like
grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and
anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually
understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and actually
helping your loved one grow."
- Al Franken, Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and
Balanced Look at the Right
On Sep 27, 2004, at 10:01 AM, David Brodbeck wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Claudius Li [mailto:aprentic@sectae.net]
So my question is, given that this seems to be a solved
problem why is there so much debate on finding the solution?
Surely I am missing something obvious.
You're missing the social dynamics around it. There are several
parties
involved:
- State officials who actually pick the voting equipment. They
generally
are politicians, with a background in law or business. They don't
understand the complicated technical issues behind electronic voting.
- Companies who build the voting equipment. Their motive is profit.
They
want to get a marketable product out quickly and cheaply. They
perceive
(correctly) that the audience they're selling to does not understand
or care
about complicated security issues, and can be easily impressed by
trivial
but sophisticated-looking features.
- The public. They don't understand these issues either, and they
have a
short attention span.
- The news media. They don't push security issues because they lack
good
visuals and don't fit into a 15-second news spot. Anything longer and
they'll lose their audience (see above.)
- Computer scientists and voting activists. They *do* understand the
issues, but are unable to explain them in a way the news media, the
public,
and state officials find compelling and understandable. The companies
who
build the equipment can easily label them as alarmists or conspiracy
theorists.
